Iraq in Crisis- Merged Superthread

[Transporter]

Wait a minute, all the anti Bush types said there was no WMD in Iraq. Are we back pedaling on the anti Bush propaganda sentiment here?

I love the way Obama has condemned the invasion because here was no credible evidence.

Guess what. Bush was right, suck it up buttercup. You were wrong. Not that anyone with the slightest clue ever doubted the real evidence.

Now they want to blame it on Bush for not following up :

Are you saying that there actually were WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion? A close friend of mine was part of the UNSCOM weapons inspection team in Iraq. He told me from the get-go that there was no possible way that Iraq possessed WMDs prior to the invasion. Even Bush himself is on record as saying that his biggest regret as president was the intelligence failure that precipitated the Iraq invasion. The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee also found that the Bush administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq" (whether intentionally or genuinely believing they were doing the right thing). There is no ambiguity or doubt on this fact. 

“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

John F. Kennedy

 

[Brad Sallows]

>He told me from the get-go that there was no possible way that Iraq possessed WMDs prior to the invasion.

At least one chemical munition was discovered; ergo, he is wrong.  He was foolish to make such an absolute claim.

"misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq" is not equivalent to "there were no WMDs".

The problem here lies with the people who choose "none", "no", etc instead of "a few", "obsolete", "probably useless", etc.

 

[Transporter]

>He told me from the get-go that there was no possible way that Iraq possessed WMDs prior to the invasion.

At least one chemical munition was discovered; ergo, he is wrong.  He was foolish to make such an absolute claim.

"misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq" is not equivalent to "there were no WMDs".

The problem here lies with the people who choose "none", "no", etc instead of "a few", "obsolete", "probably useless", etc.

Sure. I think you know what I'm saying.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm not sure I do.  I suppose you must be one of the people who casually misuses "no WMD" as a placeholder for "no WMD threat/capability worth fighting a war over".  But I can't tell those people at a glance from the people who would like to create a myth for posterity that there was never anything at all.

 

[Transporter]

I'm not sure I do.  I suppose you must be one of the people who casually misuses "no WMD" as a placeholder for "no WMD threat/capability worth fighting a war over".  But I can't tell those people at a glance from the people who would like to create a myth for posterity that there was never anything at all.

Nice try.

 

[upandatom]

According the the CIA (https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html), this site was a CW production site prior to the first Gulf War.  It was bombed and subjected to UN inspections after the war and was where Iraqi WMD's were incinerated by the UN.  From a quick read of the document a number of storage buildings were damaged by the bombings and were sealed in concrete by the UN because it was too hazardous to remove the leaking containers. 

Long story short, it was a WMD site prior to Gulf War I.  It was subject to UN inspections and most of the chemical weapons there were incinerated by the UN teams.  Some buildings were damaged and unsafe to clear out so they were sealed in concrete.  It would appear that these are the buildings referred to as being captured by ISIS in the OP's article.  While I imagine these chemicals are quite dangerous (why would the UN seal them in place rather than remove them if they were not?), my very limited understanding of chemical weapons is that their significant military effectiveness degrades relatively quickly over time (http://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/production.html).  These have been sitting there for 23 years. 

No doubt ISIS could likely find some way to use these with dramatic media effect ("ISIS terrorists strike with Saddam's secret WMDs!") but it might be easier/safer for them to kill people with more easily usable household or industrial chemicals.

The only time we really have to worry about the concrete coming apart and them gaining access to said chemicals is if we find out that a Montreal Concrete Company was handed the contract to seal those off.

I guarantee that the all mighty and powerful UN, and US government agencies have been keeping a close eye on the known locations of Chemical Weapons and components.

 

[tomahawk6]

We should be more concerned about Syrian WMD falling into ISIS hands.Saddam sent the bulk of his stockpile to Syria.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and he still has functioning production facilities for making more.

 

[Edward Campbell]

All I can say is, good god, can this be true?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All I can say is, good god, can this be true?

If it is, this should be enough in itself for the old boys network to get the Sauds, et al Middle East, to start cleaning up their back yard without help from the west.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If it is, this should be enough in itself for the old boys network to get the Sauds, et al Middle East, to start cleaning up their back yard without help from the west.

Except that I'm guessing that many in the Saudi ruling classes support the barbarism.

(I think that Saudis are part of the problem, not part of the solution.)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Except that I'm guessing that many in the Saudi ruling classes support the barbarism.

(I think that Saudis are part of the problem, not part of the solution.)

If they don't agree, we'll stop sending them LAV III recreational vehicles\ campers. ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry recceguy.  I fail to discern the humour.  And I agree with ERC: the Saudis are the problem.  Not the solution.

Herewith the solution.

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

  Sir Charles Napier on the practice of Suttee in India 1859.

 

[cupper]

One has to wonder when these turds finally push the limits of what the populous will tolerate and finally step up and cleanse the country of their idiocy.

What is the braking point?

 

[Edward Campbell]

One has to wonder when these turds finally push the limits of what the populous will tolerate and finally step up and cleanse the country of their idiocy.

What is the braking point?

See this ... maybe.

 

[Edward Campbell]

All I can say is, good god, can this be true?

Apparently, ISIS denies it.

 

[cupper]

See this ... maybe.

I was being more specific and questioning when the Iraqi Sunnis finally hit their breaking point.

Hitching their wagon to ISIS in order to get rid of Maliki may have made some convoluted sense, but the price may be too high in the end.

Some of the US punditry advanced the theory that once the Maliki government was either overthrown or the country collapsed into complete turmoil, the Sunni population would do what they did after finally being courted by the US into getting rid of the AQ within their midst.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I bet that was ISI thinking about the Taliban as well

 

[OldSolduer]

All I can say is, good god, can this be true?

A division of troops with flamethrowers.......burn the SOBs alive.

Barbarians.

 

[a_majoor]

The Iraqi population may never rise up to overthrow their new overlords for the same reason that most conquered peoples don't: they are under the heel of a much more savage and ruthless group who will not hesitate to use threats and violence against their subject population (who are generally disarmed and often beset by internal divisions their overlords can exploit).

Something similar did take place in Afghanistan; the Taliban said they would end the fighting between the various Muhajideen warlords if the population would support them. The population of Southern Afghanistan largely did, believing that the situation could hardly get worse than living between battling warlords. They did get respite from civil war between the Muhajideen leaders, what they traded it for was far worse....

As for the Saudis; it seems pretty clear that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have facilitated groups like ISIS as a proxy against the Iranians, much the same way Hezbollah is Iran's proxy force in the region. Like most other parts of the story, this isn't a nice and neat divide; some of the Gulf States like Quatar were enthusiastic about supporting the Muslim Brotherhoods when they had Egypt, while others were not. I suspect some of the Gulf States are getting cold feet seeing just what sort of Jinn they unleashed, but since it is out of the bottle....

Lastly, the news report in the Guardian is probably a brilliant piece of "black" PSYOPS to raise the threshold of revulsion in the West, as well as turn the local women away form support or sitting on the fence. Creatiing, amplifying and exploiting internal divisions is an age old technique, the big question is who exactly planted the story?